More significantly, the Supremes will essentially be deciding whether a corporation can have a religion and whether it has the right to free exercise of that religion. Since they've already decided that corporations are "persons" with other First Amendment rights ("freedom of speech," i.e., freedom to spend unlimited money to influence elections), it doesn't seem much of a stretch to extend to corporations the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, does it?

Cyberluddite:More significantly, the Supremes will essentially be deciding whether a corporation can have a religion and whether it has the right to free exercise of that religion. Since they've already decided that corporations are "persons" with other First Amendment rights ("freedom of speech," i.e., freedom to spend unlimited money to influence elections), it doesn't seem much of a stretch to extend to corporations the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, does it?

That is the interesting point. I think they completely screwed the pooch on the corporations are people thing, let's see if they come back for sloppy seconds.

Cyberluddite:More significantly, the Supremes will essentially be deciding whether a corporation can have a religion and whether it has the right to free exercise of that religion. Since they've already decided that corporations are "persons" with other First Amendment rights ("freedom of speech," i.e., freedom to spend unlimited money to influence elections), it doesn't seem much of a stretch to extend to corporations the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, does it?

Good way to look at it and probably even an argument that will be explicitly named.

I don't know where this thing that "corporations are people" started up. If anything, corporations are more valuable to the world today, and thus deserve more rights than people. Without corporations, you would not have McDonald's. Think about that. A world without McDonald's. People would be starving without McDonald's. Thank you, McDonald's.

There are two things you learn right fast about corporations: first, they want you to get a wife so you have some coont nagging you to work harder to get promotions. And second, they want you to have kids, so you feel tied down. Workplaces frowning on contraception isn't about being pro-life. It's about being pro-slavery, and you're the slave.

hervatski:You can't force a person to do something but you can't also allow them to NOT give something they are due. Does that make sense?

If the affordable Care act says "you give people contraceptives and they have to take it" that means Youre forcing the company to actively force itself on someone, which isn't right.

But the law says the company cannot deny care that the person requires. I think that's where its gonna come down to.

Actually I believe it just requires employer-provided insurance plans to offer contraception. Which is actually free coverage, because insurance companies would rather shell out for bc pills than the costs associated with an unplanned pregnancy. For obvious reasons.

For some reason this is controversial. Boner pills, naturally, still 100% okey doke.

At this point, we've established that corporations are people and people have the right to free expression of religion, therefore transitive property.

So, could this easily be defeated by requesting evidence that the corporation, as a person-entity is actually active (or a registered member) in said religion? At most, one could only provide evidence that the people who make up the corporation are members, but not the corporation itself -- which is the whole premise behind corporate personhood.

Cyberluddite:More significantly, the Supremes will essentially be deciding whether a corporation can have a religion and whether it has the right to free exercise of that religion. Since they've already decided that corporations are "persons" with other First Amendment rights ("freedom of speech," i.e., freedom to spend unlimited money to influence elections), it doesn't seem much of a stretch to extend to corporations the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, does it?

Ok I am going to form a religion that requires contraception and medical services, then I will suggest my flock finds employment with companies like Hobby Lobby. What happens when you have conflicting religious requirements to be met? Does the corporation win or do the people?

Cyberluddite:More significantly, the Supremes will essentially be deciding whether a corporation can have a religion and whether it has the right to free exercise of that religion. Since they've already decided that corporations are "persons" with other First Amendment rights ("freedom of speech," i.e., freedom to spend unlimited money to influence elections), it doesn't seem much of a stretch to extend to corporations the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, does it?

Exactly right. This makes absolutely no sense at all. The whole point of corporations is that they are separate from their owners. In order to pierce the corporate veil, really specific situations need to apply. How the fark is this supposed to work with religion? What percentage of a companies equity ownership (or are we including creditors also) need to agree on a religious belief for it to be attributable to the corporation they own securities of?

Cyberluddite:Since they've already decided that corporations are "persons" with other First Amendment rights ("freedom of speech," i.e., freedom to spend unlimited money to influence elections),

The first amendment doesn't say anything about people having the right of free speech. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." Any law which abridges freedom of speech is unconstitutional.

Otherwise, I could pass all sorts of crazy-ass laws. Don't like abortion? Pass a law making it illegal for anyone acting as a representative of Planned Parenthood to lobby on their behalf to seek federal, state, or private grants. Don't like hamburgers? You could make it illegal for McDonald's to say their hamburgers taste good. Hey, McDonald's doesn't have the right of free speech, right? They could make it illegal for Fark to parody the news, since it might hurt the news' feelings. Fark.com is a corporation and doesn't have the right of free speech to satirize the news after all.

If taken to the asinine conclusion of the argument by Hobby lobby and their ilk, any person working for them must agree to all of their beliefs and since they belief providing payment as part of employee compensation for insurance means the employee has no right to private medical decisions; do for profit business have the right to install monitoring equipment in employee's home and person to insure they do not engage in any behavior the company finds distasteful? Can the companies track any monies paid to employees to insure they do not spend money on things like alcohol and condoms if the companies religion forbid them.

This is true. The key issue in Citizens United was not to say that corporations have the right to speak, but that corporations have the ability to speak. That, to me, is completely nonsensical and the root of the issue.

DamnYankees:This is true. The key issue in Citizens United was not to say that corporations have the right to speak, but that corporations have the ability to speak. That, to me, is completely nonsensical and the root of the issue.

I disagree. I think the key issue was that the right of a company to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence an election outweighs the public good of having public elections that aren't influenced by obscene contributions of soft money. I think any rational person looking at it would see that the public good of having less money in politics outweighs the freedom of speech.

DamnYankees:Cyberluddite: More significantly, the Supremes will essentially be deciding whether a corporation can have a religion and whether it has the right to free exercise of that religion. Since they've already decided that corporations are "persons" with other First Amendment rights ("freedom of speech," i.e., freedom to spend unlimited money to influence elections), it doesn't seem much of a stretch to extend to corporations the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, does it?

Exactly right. This makes absolutely no sense at all. The whole point of corporations is that they are separate from their owners. In order to pierce the corporate veil, really specific situations need to apply. How the fark is this supposed to work with religion? What percentage of a companies equity ownership (or are we including creditors also) need to agree on a religious belief for it to be attributable to the corporation they own securities of?

That gives the mischievous lawyer in me the idea of personally suing the owners of a company on the basis that the company sharing its owners' religious beliefs muddies its identity as a separate entity.

I have to admit, this "corporate religion" idea is so nonsensical it is just chock full of unintended consequences-goodness.

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich:DamnYankees: This is true. The key issue in Citizens United was not to say that corporations have the right to speak, but that corporations have the ability to speak. That, to me, is completely nonsensical and the root of the issue.

I disagree. I think the key issue was that the right of a company to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence an election outweighs the public good of having public elections that aren't influenced by obscene contributions of soft money. I think any rational person looking at it would see that the public good of having less money in politics outweighs the freedom of speech.

Legally speaking, that's not what the case turned on though. If it was simply a question of weighing public policy choices, that choice would have been left for the legislature. The only way for the court to overturn that choice is to assert some right on the part of the aggrieved party which is being violated.

No, in light of the VRA decision, one of the all time worst opinions in court history, the court seems to have completely gone of the deep end and said "fark it, we're just gonna make shiat up entirely", but that's how its supposed to work at least.

I would endorse your legal claims if you were making over 250,000 dollars a year, but alas, the purpose of the courts are to ensure that people of my stature and success can hold onto their money. You may consider this unfair, but this is the only way to protect the American dream, to make sure anyone can succeed in this country, and when they get to the top, no number of disastrous decisions can take that away from them.

Triumph:I think they're only talking about the morning after abortion pills and regular abortions, not contraception.

That's really irrelevant. Once the court rules that they can deny Plan B, it's unlikely they will turn around and deny them the right to not carry contraceptive pills on their insurance if they would modify it later.

DamnYankees:No, in light of the VRA decision, one of the all time worst opinions in court history, the court seems to have completely gone of the deep end and said "fark it, we're just gonna make shiat up entirely", but that's how its supposed to work at least.

No argument with you there. The VRA decision is going to down in history on par with other decisions like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson as a "what the hell were they thinking?"

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich:DamnYankees: No, in light of the VRA decision, one of the all time worst opinions in court history, the court seems to have completely gone of the deep end and said "fark it, we're just gonna make shiat up entirely", but that's how its supposed to work at least.

No argument with you there. The VRA decision is going to down in history on par with other decisions like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson as a "what the hell were they thinking?"

I think its worse in purely legal terms than Plessy. Plessy was a terrible decision in that the legal logic used to uphold separate but equal actually did make abstract sense, it just didn't match the empirical reality that separate wasn't actually equal. The VRA decision is just nonsense, without any constitutional basis for it.

vygramul:hervatski: You can't force a person to do something but you can't also allow them to NOT give something they are due. Does that make sense?

If the affordable Care act says "you give people contraceptives and they have to take it" that means Youre forcing the company to actively force itself on someone, which isn't right.

But the law says the company cannot deny care that the person requires. I think that's where its gonna come down to.

No one is forcing the employee to use contraceptives, so we're not forcing stuff onto them anymore than we force roads onto tax-payers who walk everywhere.

That's what I'm saying. How can they say "you can't force us to give something to someone who asks for something Thats within their right to take." If the law was forcing them to force contraceptives on people and they say their religion is against that that's one thing. But its saying that you can't deny someone a right.

gilgigamesh:Actually I believe it just requires employer-provided insurance plans to offer contraception. Which is actually free coverage, because insurance companies would rather shell out for bc pills than the costs associated with an unplanned pregnancy. For obvious reasons.

Exactly. Companies can exclude birth control, if they're prepared to pay more. And then the employee can go out and get a policy rider for BC, and get a rebate for doing so.

dj_bigbird:swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception. The JW plan will not include blood transfusions, the christian scientists plan will include only prayer.

They're not "denying contraception" - the employer would simply not have to pay for it. The employees would still be free to go out into the real world and pay for it on their own.